1.It reminds me of concept of the founding fathers, belonging to the established social order, in the terms of establishing regulations for themselves, and leaving a large majority of groups out.

2.According to James Madison, the source of wealth comes from faculties made up of white males, in connection to the founding fathers, wanting the ones in government then to have property and so on. Which helped in keeping their status and set them apart from the rest of the classes and guard their wealth. In which continues the cycle of only the 1% or so being able to achieve the wealth and pass it on.

3.I do agree with the explanation of wealth and poverty, as today it still exist. I don’t however agree that wealth should be only gained or contained to the same few individuals that have more power. It is because of this power and connection that poverty is still alive today. It hasn’t changed much since the country was established. Poverty can be diminished if equality existed in the world, giving others the same opportunity, rather than helping the already rich to maintain their status.

4.The core mission or “first object” is to guard the wealthy and their status. It does not surprise me one bit that from the very beginning this was the goal, and it still is today, although sugar coated a bit. I think that the government tries to say it is for the people, but it really isn’t, it’s for the wealthy that keep on giving. I believe that back then in the founding father era their mission was to keep the wealthy in a sort of safety net, and it still continues. The working class and the lower class even today still struggle to be helped, to be seen and heard.

5.Truly not surprised by Federalist #10 opposes democracy and follows the republican party. As I mentioned in a different discussion board, this way of thinking is from old school white wealthy men that has passed on their families, just like their wealth. I think the author would dislike a democracy as it would mean that the majority would actually finally benefit from the wealthy and not the other way around. I also think the author would dislike this as it would mean the protection or shield that has been created from the wealthy would be gone, leaving them to actually live by what it says. It would mean that all are equal, no more upper class like there is now.